Originally posted by dadudemon
I listened.Nothing like that is stated. 😬
In fact, it seems weirdly out of place to state something like that so even in context, still doesn't make sense.
But here's the problem: what's wrong with stating "Build the Well" again? They are MAGA hat wearing, Trump-lovers. If they state stuff Trump repeats....so?
Yeah I don't hear it either. Though even if we say it is...the guy lied lol. He said the kids were chanting build the wall. Not "a single student said 'build the wall' one time". Still a lie.
Originally posted by Silent Master
He is just looking for a reason to let all the adults, including the media and celebrities off the hook.
Notice I have not called these students "children" a single time?
I don't buy into the copout that "oh my gosh! A 16 year old is just a child!" Lies upon lies. I knew what I was doing beyond a shadow of a doubt around 7-8. I knew right from wrong just the same as most other children that age.
At 16, most humans are adults and have been adults for tens of thousands of years. It's only very recent in human history that we pretend a 17 year old young man is a child.
It's a logical fallacy: appeal to emotion. "Think of the children! He is just a mere boy!"
So I haven't used that argument this entire time to avoid the appeal to emotion fallacy.
Edit - My point is, at 16 or 17, you know what mocking someone is. You know it may hurt feelings or cause problems. That's what part of this controversy is - was his smirk a mockery or defiance? "He's just a wee lad!" is not an argument I think is legit for this scenario.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Notice I have not called these students "children" a single time?I don't buy into the copout that "oh my gosh! A 16 year old is just a child!" Lies upon lies. I knew what I was doing beyond a shadow of a doubt around 7-8. I knew right from wrong just the same as most other children that age.
At 16, most humans are adults and have been adults for tens of thousands of years. It's only very recent in human history that we pretend a 17 year old young man is a child.
It's a logical fallacy: appeal to emotion. "Think of the children! He is just a mere boy!"
So I haven't used that argument this entire time to avoid the appeal to emotion fallacy.
Teens don't think rationally though. No, they aren't children in the same way little kids are, but they aren't full fledged adults either. Their brains are still developing.
Also you bring up how in the past people were adults at 16, but weren't our lifespans waaaaaaaaaay shorter at the time?
Originally posted by Surtur
Correct! The video doesn't show anyone chanting "build the wall".Don't feel too bad for being duped...after all he lied about his military service too.
I said someone shouted "build the wall" while others were chanting at around the 00:11-00:13 mark and it happened, you can hear it. Maybe stop lying for once?
Originally posted by Surtur
Teens don't think rationally though. No, they aren't children in the same way little kids are, but they aren't full fledged adults either. Their brains are still developing.Also you bring up how in the past people were adults at 16, but weren't our lifespans waaaaaaaaaay shorter at the time?
Interesting. So why do you flip out and want teens jailed when it's Black teens acting shitty?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Notice I have not called these students "children" a single time?I don't buy into the copout that "oh my gosh! A 16 year old is just a child!" Lies upon lies. I knew what I was doing beyond a shadow of a doubt around 7-8. I knew right from wrong just the same as most other children that age.
At 16, most humans are adults and have been adults for tens of thousands of years. It's only very recent in human history that we pretend a 17 year old young man is a child.
It's a logical fallacy: appeal to emotion. "Think of the children! He is just a mere boy!"
So I haven't used that argument this entire time to avoid the appeal to emotion fallacy.
Edit - My point is, at 16 or 17, you know what mocking someone is. You know it may hurt feelings or cause problems. That's what part of this controversy is - was his smirk a mockery or defiance? "He's just a wee lad!" is not an argument I think is legit for this scenario.
I'm not using the "he was a kid" argument to excuse any of his actions, I'm just using it to show the difference in ages between the people involved. but I can understand the confusion. I'll try and start using the term teens instead.
Originally posted by Surtur
I don't hear that shouted, and you posted this to try to show Nathan Phillips didn't lie. He did lie. Period.
That's your confirmation bias kicking in again.
You're lying again, Surt. I posted that video as a direct response to you bring this specific issue up, see your post below as proof:
Originally posted by Surtur
I listened carefully and couldn't hear anyone chanting "build the wall" like Phillips claimed.
Originally posted by Surtur
Teens don't think rationally though. No, they aren't children in the same way little kids are, but they aren't full fledged adults either. Their brains are still developing.Also you bring up how in the past people were adults at 16, but weren't our lifespans waaaaaaaaaay shorter at the time?
To your first point: that's wrong, too. It's an old myth that won't die. Your brain keeps changing over time until you die. Children think extremely rationally from around sapience (toddler age). That's what makes us human. Hence our species name being "Homo sapiens sapiens."
The average lifespan was so low in, say, 40,000 years ago because infant mortality was huge. If you lived beyond 11 or so, your average life expectancy was 60-ish. But I will note that in one study I was reading, the average number of children an early human female had by 18 years was 3. The male skeletons also had "battle scars" in young males, as well. Meaning, we were full adults in our early teens with the males being expected to hunt and fight at quite an early age. This matches much more closely with our closest relatives - Chimps.
Yes, you're right, human males often take longer to physically develop with average skeletal maturity occurring between 14-17 as opposed to females which are 1-3 years earlier than males. I actually don't know what the evolutionary advantage of that is (there is sexual asymmetry even in our development). Perhaps it's the energy expenditure to go through menstruation so females that grew to maturity faster were more likely to survive and pass on their genes.
Anyway, I feel we are off track. That student is a young man, not a child. He did show immense restraint by not punching Phillips, justifiably, in the face, for assaulting him. How does that fit your "just a kid with no rationality" narrative, you punk?